How smartphones are changing digital photography

The enormous growth in popularity of smartphones in the past three years has had many consequences, some of which were in retrospect easy to predict, and some of which are not yet fully understood. This is true especially in the field of digital photography. Smartphone users, it appears, take a lot of photographs. The Apple iPhone 4 is currently the most popular 'camera' on Flickr.com, and millions of dollars are being made by mobile developers who can't create photo apps quickly enough to satisfy the demands of a new breed - 'serious' cameraphone photographers.

It would be a hard-hearted soul indeed who would argue that more people taking more pictures is a 'bad' thing, but not everyone is excited about the potential of mobile photography. Just ask Cisco. Just two years ago, Cisco acquired Pure Digital Technologies, manufacturer of the then-popular Flip pocket camcorder for a hefty $590 million. Cisco was convinced that it was onto a winner. But then the Flip flopped.

The Flip pocket camcorder went through several iterations and was - for a while - a hugely sucessful device. However, the growth in popularity of video-enabled smartphones made the USB-reliant flip look out of date, and Cisco 'retired' the line in April this year.

There are many possible explanations for Ciso's failure to make good on its investment, but there's no denying that once HD video recording became standard on smartphones in 2009-10, the smartphone-sized Flip lost its unique selling-point. Why take two devices out with you when you can just take one?

Smartphones Get Serious

This article isn't about camcorders, pocket or otherwise, but the rapid demise of the Flip is worth mentioning since it might have worrying consequences for the mainstream digital camera industry. According to Nigel McNaught, Director of the Photo Marketing Association, quoted recently in Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK: 'It’s realistic to assume some of the loss in compact camera unit sales is down to smartphones'. His explanation is simple: 'Smartphones are getting better’. Whatever the reason, compact camera sales have plummeted and in July 2011 plunged 13%, compared to only the month before. In the UK, figures from the PMA show that the revenue generated from compact camera sales fell by £46m for the year to June 2011. Sales of compact cameras dropped 5% in this period, but DSLR sales rose by 9% and mirrorless interchangeable lens camera sales rose by an astonishing 166%.

It will take time before cameraphones are good enough to seriously challenge enthusiast compact cameras in terms of baseline functionality, but more and more, images from smartphones are appearing in online publications and even the occasional newspaper story, that would traditionally have been the preserve of professionals carrying 'serious' cameras. It's not just the spontaneity of cameraphones or their increasingly impressive image quality that makes them appealing to photographers. There are a huge range of photo-related apps available that can enhance the picture-taking process.

Every smartphone operating system supports 'apps' - dedicated applications which can be downloaded and installed to your phone. Apps are available to do anything from helping you find a local restaurant to checking your bank balance. To the left is Apple's App Store for iOS, which contains a huge number of apps designed to cater to the needs and desires of photographers.

The Android App store pictured on the left contains over 250,000 apps, compared to roughly 425,000 in Apple's App Store. While some of the most popular photography apps are offered in both platforms, several of the most popular either began life on or remain exclusive to Apple's iOS platform.

One of the areas in which cameraphones beat traditional cameras hands-down, at least for now, is connectivity. The vast majority of cameras are 'dumb' devices in the sense that they cannot send and receive data wirelessly. If you want to manipulate, resize and share photographs taken with a traditional digital camera, you're going to need a computer with an Internet connection. With a smartphone, however, you can take, manipulate and disseminate your shots in no time at all, on the same platform.

For evidence of the appeal of this way of working, you need look no further than Instagram. Only eight months old, Instagram currently has over 5 million users and hosts 100 million images, all uploaded from iPhones.

Instagram is incredibly popular but of course it isn't alone. Images are an integral part of social networking sites like Facebook, Flickr, Google+, Photobucket and Tumblr. There are also websites dedicated to mobile photography, including EYE’EM and MobiTog. P1XELS is another excellent site dedicted to 'iPhoneography' as an art form. Set up by new media artist Knox Bronson in December 2009, it has a huge following.

But is it Really Photography?

One of the apps most strongly associated with 'iPhoneography' is Hipstamatic. Hipstamatic and its various competitors have been embraced not only by the consumer market but also by professional photojournalists. Damon Winter, Staff Photographer from The New York Times garnered some unwarranted notoriety after winning third place for a feature submitted to the Pictures of the Year International 2011 competition. The pictures were made with an iPhone using Hipstamatic - an app not known for its subtle manipulation. The pictures had previously appeared in print in the New York edition of the NYT along with a version on the newspaper's site.

Photographer Damon Winter took third prize in the Pictures of the Year International 2011 photo competition with a portfolio of images taken using Hipstamatic on his iPhone. Winter said he couldn't have taken those particular pictures using his SLR, claiming that using the larger equipment have made his subjects uncomfortable.

He likened the informal and discrete picture-taking with a camera-phone to that of those taken by the soldiers themselves, letting him in only capturing the snap-shots with a professional photographer's eye.

Barbara Davison won the same competition with a more traditional portfolio of images shot with a dedicted stills camera.

Her monochrome studies are heavily vignetted and are shot with a very shallow depth of field. Hardly a strictly 'naturalistic' view of the world but one that we're more used to seeing from conventional photojournalism.

The controversy surrounding Winter's entry was not so much the choice of camera, but more the Hipstamatic app's manipulation of the scene compared to a 'straight' shot. Winter asserted no content was altered or obscured and that the choice of Hipstamatic to give a certain 'look' was analogous to choosing a particular type of camera (he mentioned a Holga, specifically), film stock, or film processing method.

We're not all professional photojournalists working in warzones of course, but wherever you are, you might sympathise with Winter's argument that sometimes snapping pictures with a smartphone is much more practical than it would be with a DSLR. A common complaint amongst photographers all over the world, peaceful and war-torn alike is that police and security officials, as well as ordinary people regard them and their equipment at best with suspicion, and sometimes with open aggression. In this environment, the cameraphone comes into its own. Small, discrete and connected, it can send photos and video around the world in seconds, from places where pulling out a DSLR or compact camera might just create unwarranted attention.

What's Next?

The increase in popularity and variety of mobile photography apps isn't a huge surprise given the explosion in smartphones, but few people foresaw the emergence of third-party hardware accessories for for cellphone photographers. Amongst those manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon is Schneider Optics, which recently announced an iPro Lens System for the iPhone 4.

Schneider Optics' iPro Lens System for the Apple iPhone 4 is designed to turn the phone's fixed camera lens into a telephoto or fisheye via included converter lenses. Schneider is not alone - several other manufacturers are exploring the potential of hardware 'add-ons' to expand the photographic abilities of today's smartphones.

The iPro Lens System consists of wide angle and fisheye lenses that attach onto a dedicated iPhone case via a bayonet mount. At $199 it’s not cheap, but Schneider clearly believes that it will sell enough of the kits to make development worthwhile. Rollei has thrown its hat into the ring as well, and has created a telephoto lens specifically designed for the iPhone 4. Where will it end?

Who knows. As this article was being prepared for publication Apple announced the long-anticipated iPhone 4S, which, even if it wasn't the apocryphal iPhone 5 that a lot of people had hoped for, offers significant improvements to the iPhone 4 in terms of its photographic specification. Leading up to the launch, mobile advertising company InMobi commissioned a report which discovered that 41% of smartphone users in the US were planning to buy the rumored iPhone 5, 50% of whom intended to make that purchase within 6 months of its launch.

Asked whether they would be interested in a hypothetical upgrade model to the 4, only 15% suggested that they might buy a new handset. Whether or not you regard the iPhone 4S as a 'warmed over' iPhone 4 depends of course on your priorities as a smartphone user. If those consumers who said they would buy an iPhone 5 decide to invest in the new iPhone 4S, Apple’s current share of the US smartphone market will be propelled from 27% to an estimated 41%.

Whichever smartphone you choose (and even if you don't), experts are predicting that in the coming years, desktop computers are in danger of being made obsolete by smartphones and tablet computers. Will traditional digital cameras find themselves in the same position? No-one knows exactly what the future of photography will look like but one thing is for sure - things are about to get interesting...

Joanne Carter is the founder and editorial director of TheAppWhisperer.com, a professional photographer and Associate of the British Industry of Professional Photographers, BIPP, as well as a professional journalist, specializing in technology.

Low end moves nothing forward.If some can't see the reason for an slr,or consider it unnecessary,then this person either playing around or never been a serious photographer.If you can't see the creativity what slr cameras gives,thats ok,but i don't want to see this person shapes opinion about them.If a pro goes amateur and downgrade to their level,no problem,but this person should be considered as an amateur,and given not much credit.

I used to think i'd never think of my phone as a camera for anything but maybe taking pics of an accident someone might get in. Then I heard about the Note II's camera. As a hair stylist, the thought of taking pics of styles I do, then sending my clients their photos (I have AT&T's 4GLTE, so that works!), what an awesome service that would be.

In photographing people in social situations, smart phone cameras can often do what no DSLR camera can do - they can capture natural and off-guard expressions.

I specialize in event photography and mostly use a Canon DSLR. I can see the reactions I get when people see it pointed at them. Some of the women start brushing their hair and checking their makeup. Men start posing. They group together, smile and face the camera. Conversation stops.

An observer holding an obvious camera changes their subjects. People behave differently and often act self consciously when they think they may be photographed.

Cell phone cameras avoid most of these problems, especially if held casually.

P.S. While I will certainly continue to use my Canon since many events occur in rooms so dark that only my professional flash will light them, I will try, where possible to use a less obvious camera.

I agree with Olympus--camera phones are to photography what 2 minute noodles are to cooking.

Since I was able to get a d-SLR, I refuse to use anything else. Why should I? The d-SLR gets better results. I may only be a hobbyist, not a serious professional, but why use an inferior tool? If I need portability, I can always use a mirrorless, and if I need connectivity, I can use that in conjunction with an Eye-Fi card.

I mean, you don't see LeBron James or Dwight Howard playing NBA games with a Nerf boy purchased from Toys R Us? An aspiring musician saves up for his 1st real instrument, he doesn't use a toy piano or Guitar Hero & call himself a musician & claim "a good musician can get good music out of anything." I see no difference here.

I want a quality camera at my side, and I don't want to carry a separate phone. So how about a new class of device that is first and foremost a quality carry-everywhere portable camera but comes with a phone and some basic PDA functionality as well. For example, a Canon S95 or S100 is only modestly heavier (7 vs. 5 oz) than an iPhone, is shorter in length and a bit thicker.

I wonder if the idea would fly. More and more the phone functionality on "smart phones" are afterthoughts. Witness the recent Nexus 4s -- reviewers generally agree that it is a crap phone, but otherewise terrific.

Are there enough photographers out there who might like this? Frankly, I'm tired of iPhone mania - the quality of the photos I see are generally average at best. I don't want to have that be the only camera I have with me.

The younger generation have changed what we elders call the 'English language', they have altered what we call 'morals', their music isn't our music, and as for their driving! Well on and on it goes for every generation, why should we be so opinionated to think they don't have the right or the ability to change the world of 'photographic style'

True, there's never been so many people taking pictures, but there's also never been such a proliferation of outrageously bad photos either. The largest majority doesn't want to learn anything about producement of at least a decent graphic expression, since "if there's no program for it, it's not a photo theme". Programs create, instead of authors, and buyers replace photographers. The industry follows the trend, making people ever more illiterate. Sure, it's nice to have a newest phone... but does it make people learn how to talk properly? Same with phone, compact, DSLR or whatever else the dog-eat-dog market dishes out. Progress? Soon the light-written stories will be replaced by babble, filling so-called social pages, telling nothing to no-one. Oh well... as long as the sales tip the scales..."It takes a lot of wisdom to understand why things must be the way they are", said someone.In the meantime, let's us older folks just enjoy photography as we know it. ;) No use complaining...

Forgive my words, but how could a piece o c*** like that get third place in a competition? It looks like a bad CGI work and that's an affront to photographers who spend years learning and refining their technique.

"Photographer Damon Winter took third prize in the Pictures of the Year International 2011 photo competition with a PORTFOLIO OF IMAGES taken using Hipstamatic on his iPhone."

Sounds like it was more than just one image...

I suppose we could all have entered the particular competition. When I occasionally watch a couple of TV game shows where one could become a millionaire, I get every answer right first time (my kids' nickname for me varies between wikipedia.com or google.com depending on what they want to know) -- doesn't mean I'll do the same if I was aware of the millions watching, sweating under studio lights and being pressured by the show host to deliver!

We only have to look at the total revolution in the watch industry by the cell phone to see history repeating itself. Is a cell phone a Rolex??? No. But it gets the job done... tells time.Some still look at photography as a method to record a certain time and place. The simplest cell phone can do that.

I hope you can help me. I am thinking of buying equipment to take photos of tourist and sell them, like in Disney Land, where the photographers are walking around and transmit the digital images to a central booth were clients chose and buy them. I have no clue about what to get. I did some research and the equipment seems to be very expensive and I need advise in what is the right setting for my new venture. Also, I am not sure if I will need any software to edit photos. My idea is to have a nice background picture were people can pose like if they were actually at that location. I also saw a program were you shoot against a blue background and then over impose the photos.Please help, I'm very exited about the business side but know nothing about the technical side.

I hope you asked this question in a forum. Any forum. For the transmission side get an Wifi SD card, and a camera that can take an Eyefi SD card.

For small non intrusive photography then I would look at the Olympus or Panasonic Micro cameras. The GH1 is good and goes for around $400, you can even get a used one cheaper. Get one good lens, like the new 25mm Leica or better for portraits the cheap Olympus 45mm.

On the editing side, the park should do that. Flash the shot to a standard background or just use your shots as is. At Universal studios in Orlando, the shots would be taken, no editing and a reference number given. Then prints could be picked up any time. Photographers would stand at one place get people as they walked through the gate. Shoot rapidly and then hand out the numbers.

The i-people just love to associate everything with iPhone, attributing every good things on earth to iPhone. iPhone, and smartphone, is only a tool to take down some imaging with shallow depth. Please don't over-rate iPhone beyond what it deserves!

The curious part about what these phones are capable of is the quality of their video recording. Recently I sold a classic Pontiac only because I could record and send a 1 minute video of the car reversing out of the drive and driving off.

Try as I have, My D7000 Nikon can't equal the convenience or the constant focus my Android OS phone does. Run the clip through Sony Vegas and the results are nothing short of amazing.

I see 10 smartphones to every camera at wedding we attend. (We're in the industry) Some even populate Facebook with shots before the ceremony is over.

Small lens, tiny sensor, and all in your pocket. Is it any wonder these devices are taking the world by storm so-to-speak.

it is not an either or issue, the thrust of these articles is that photography IS being changed by smartphones. Their ubiquity and connectivity means that it is very unlikely any event will not be documented in some fashion.It may not be high art, we may not like the subject matter, but they are being used and used sometimes to great effect.

Well they could be used for Hi-Art. In my, well now unfortunately inactive art career, I often found myself to be the most creative when being extremely limited by equipment or other parameters regarding a particular project. At least to me art is about an idea as it is about execution, especially when execution is limited by circumstance. I photographed a wedding this summer, and during the ceremony a lot of people had a cellphone up recording what was going on. I wonder what that does to us and how we experience the world. When I was in Budapest, I walked around for a day without a camera first, before going out again and photographing it. I found putting the camera down sometimes to be refreshing after years of photographing. I think that it can separate you from experience, and that it is also funny when I see something and think how stupid it was to leave the camera at home :)

The Nokia N8, with its 1/1.83" sensor (3x bigger than that of the iPhone 4 and even larger than purpose built high quality cameras like the Panasonic LUMIX ZS-3), does a convincing job at outperforming many P&S cameras. It's a real shame it never really caught on in the States.

FWIW, Why use smartphones on the title if you're only going to talk about iPhones?

> Leading up to the launch, mobile advertising company InMobi commissioned a report which discovered that 41% of smartphone users in the US were planning to buy the rumored iPhone 5, 50% of whom intended to make that purchase within 6 months of its launch.

Want to make a statement of future US smartphone market? Look at the market share evolution in the last 2 years. I wonder if there anything other than cheerleading for anyone to seriously expect them to grab a 50% share.

I'd say smartphones are in terms of their photo abilities at least 3 years behind the cheapest P&S cams. That said, I guess smartphones will kill only the lowest level of P&S cams. And that won't change in the near future.

Love it. Over the years, I have heard: The only good photography is black&white; only film is real photography; auto-focus is for idiots--real photographers turn a lens; auto-exposure is for amateurs; blah, blah, blah.Look where we were with the earliest digital cameras just a couple of decades ago. Look where digital is now. Look at the people opposed to cameras w/o dSLR mirrors, but look what Sony has done with the NEX series and what Nikon and Fuji are doing now.The camera in a phone may never replace a dSLR, but given what has happened to other technologies, it may for most people....

" but more and more, images from smartphones are appearing in online publications and even the occasional newspaper story, that would traditionally have been the preserve of professionals carrying 'serious' cameras. It's not just the spontaneity of cameraphones or their increasingly impressive image quality that makes them appealing to photographers."

There are actually two subjects very clumsily merged in this brief excerpt:1. "the preserve of professionals"and2. "increasingly impressive image quality"

The balance of this excellent and interesting article aside, the reason these photos are increasingly appearing in publications comes down to two:

1. Free photo's are a lot cheaper than those from professionals

2. No one-including the editors and readership-have any notions or desire for quality.

No recognizes good layout or typography since anyone could put anything on a page.

Some people are doing some truly remarkable things with the iPhone camera and apps. You may want to check out the web site, Pixels At An Exhibition. While the iPhone is no substitute for a DSLR (and will not be for the foreseeable future) it is very near a substitute for any camera that does not have a quality optical and/or electronic viewer, and I would include the mirror-less cameras in that category. Indeed, the iPhone can be used by the serious photographer as a painter would use a sketch pad, something to get preliminary ideas down on paper, or computer file. I will continue to buy an iPhone every 2-3 years and a quality DSLR less often but I will never again buy a camera, any camera, that does not have an optical viewer. The iPhone has that segment all but beat.

Well written article. I've seen many articles about this subject, from serious websites to casual blogs, and this one got more facts than opinions. Good research. The end is open ended as it should be.

Please ignore the whiners. They only want ice cream and if you give them a sandwich, they will fall to the floor kicking, screaming.

But, of course, writing wishy-washy articles like this must be easier than to do more hardcore stuff, like, you know, lens reviews. Just in case you haven't noticed, your last lens review was done in September 2010, THAT'S MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO!

(Disclaimer: No, I am not going to threaten to boycot dpreview. But my feeling is that the focus of your site is shifting further and further away from the kind of photography I am interested in.)

Sigh. This was written by an external contributor. No camera reviews were harmed in the production of this article. If you don't want to read it, feel free not to. But at least read as far as the byline...

I feel ashamed by this so-called professional photographer distoring the principles of photography. I am glad that I am not a member of BIPP. The claim of professional journalist specializing on technology makes me wonder if the writer really understood the technology, or simply bought into the i-Hype.

The article is hardly about the title. It is about the sales figures, popularity of iPhone etc. The only point I saw is about shooting not being noticed, but also the smarthphone is not the best camera to do it.

Shooting with smarthphone was always more conventional, but certainly iPhone with its sleek case will never be able to match the average quality of point and shoot. And here one very important question arises: how much the quality of the photograph is acceptable? Of course, it depends. And what if we persuade people that it acceptable? We will make shooting with iPhone fashionable - via articles, via statistics at popular photo hosters, via immense promoting... And it seems that Apple is just pursuing such a policy in recent months.

The InMobi report you are referring to specifically distinguishes iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S. They didn't know what would be announced at the time of survey.

The "41% planning to buy iPhone 4 successor" number is valid only if the successor would have been iPhone 5. But now we know that iPhone 4S was announced. In this case the correct number is "fewer than 15%".

And by the time iPhone 5 will be announced the study will no longer be valid because competition develops fast.

I saw Damon Winter's photography and I liked all of his shots. I think he did a good job at capturing the moments. Moreover, the effects were good enough - they work! I don't mean to offend professional photographers, but if an iphone camera can take good enough pictures and win photography competitions, then why not? It's 2011 and we should embrace the portability and celebrate all of these cool inventions.